2006 (1) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondent. [Order]. On account of dispute between the appellant and the Revenue, as regards the availability of Notification No. 223/88 dated 20-6-1988, the appellant deposited the differential duty amount of Rs. 2,77,656/- vide debit in their P.L.A. during the pendency of their appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Ultimately, the appeal filed before the Tribunal a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Revenue. 3. It has been contended before me that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the pre-deposit made after the clearance of the goods. Reliance has been made to the following case laws : (i) Punjab Beverages v. Collector - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 506 (ii) Industrial Cables v. Commissioner - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 543 (iii) Plas Pack Industries v. Commissioner - 2004 (167) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the above, it is clear that the appellant s customers have not availed of the credit of duty in terms of Rule 57E certificates. On the success of their appeal on the basic issue of availability of Notification No. 223/88, their entitlement to the refund of pre-deposit made by them cannot be withheld on the ground of bar of unjust enrichment. I accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X